buildpulse

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions per-endpoint costs but does not disclose read-only nature, authentication needs, rate limits, or side effects. Inconsistent coverage (US-focused vs global) adds confusion.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is wordy with redundant 'BuildPulse: BuildPulse —' and misplaced coverage statement. The endpoint list is useful but could be presented more concisely.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With 15 parameters and no output schema, the description lacks guidance on parameter combinations or usage examples. It provides an overview and endpoint list but does not tie parameters to actions or explain expected outputs.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, baseline 3. The description adds value for the 'action' parameter by listing endpoints and costs, but other parameter descriptions in the schema are minimal (e.g., 'lang' description is 'lang'), and the tool description does not compensate for those.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it provides home construction and renovation intelligence including cost estimates, contractor vetting, etc. The tool name 'buildpulse' and the sibling list (other domain-specific pulses) helps differentiate it, but the description could be more direct about its scope.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The sibling list is provided but no comparison or exclusion criteria. The description implies US-focused construction but doesn't state when not to use it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.